You're wrong!

No he's not!

youre a girl!!!

You're gay!

you need to express dominance somewhere, i guess. As far as i can tell, expressing it with through something as technically meaningless as an internet post is one of the most harmless ways to do this, aside from video gaming.

it sure is better than listening to 50 cent and confronting live ppl u dont know for no reason and waving guns around in clubs.

"As far as i can tell, expressing it with through something as technically meaningless as an internet post is one of the most harmless ways to do this, aside from video gaming."

yep
and it wont satisfiy you any bit cause at least somewhere inside you you know you're a loser who can't put up with real life

also, you dont need to confront people at all if you have a really satisfying life
you just wont feel the need to do it

Archive.

your research institute is shit!

hahaha

i don't think this means they're losers who can't handle real life since we ALL know these types of people in real life aswell.

shut up, i have to win my argument!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

that wasn't very nice.
i have a girlfriend, u know.

in the off-life I win arguments with my fists, as this is not possible online I have to resort to wussy methods by resorting to endless argumentation until the other gives up. Either way must be the alpha male, it is genetic and not a character flaw. ;)

most of the arguements here are mere contradictions anyway

:)

<3

lol, what a logically convoluted, stupid post, n1!

Excuse me? If you have something to contribute by all means feel free..

hes an admin, his job is to troll.

Some people think they're right about a subject, other think they're also right. They then proceed to share the evidence that convinced them with the other person, hoping that they too will begin to see the sense of their position. However, in most cases, the evidence is not exactly conclusive, in either direction: in fact, if you think about it, that's a neccessary requisite for an argument; if the facts were clear cut, why would there be disagreement in all but the most extreme cases.

You might not realise it, but your entire post is an argument. The main point being that arguing is stupid and that those who do it are of weak character. You do exactly what you claim to despise, and you do it in the single most flawed way, through an insult. You don't present yourself as the bastion of virtue which you appear to think of yourself as.

Archive.

Well yeah, if you want to convolute language to the point where it becomes meaningless, that's what I said. Unless of course the evidence points obviously towards one point of view, but in that case there's likely to be no argument.

Archive.

It's one of the more useful components to persuading someone of your position. Also, if evidence is defined as "That which tends to prove or disprove something", then anything that proves an argument is evidence, and thus evidence is a neccessary consituent of a correct viewpoint.

If you mean that you don't have to provide evidence to be right, then yes you are correct, but I don't understand how that applies to what I said.

Archive.

Yes, but you have to provide other people with evidence in order for them to believe you're right. Atleast in a logical sense.

man, i am getting a headache while reading this :x

owned

Archive.

I would have thought it obvious that you don't need to preach to the converted.

Archive.

It wouldn't matter who was right first, unless you're looking for some kind of ego boost.

Archive.

Yes, it shows you that it's pointless and idiotic to ponder who evidenced the unevidenced first evidence.

Archive.

Yes, evidence proves a point, something which you disagreed with earlier. Atleast in part.

Archive.

drugs are baaaaad mmkay

It was your second reply to me "Evidence isn't neccessary for rightness"; as I said, you partially disagreed with evidence being able to prove a point. Of course, you might have simply implied that evidence isn't entirely neccessary, atleast in an emprical form, but to make somewhat meaningful assertions about the world you must quote some evidence, however unreliable it may be.

A point is simply my term for a frame of mind, something which you hold in your mind to be true. In articulating that point, providing evidence for it, showing it to others, you attempt to prove or justify it.

Incidently, you do not have to agree, and that is why I stated that argument rarely occur where evidence is conclusive. It may not be conclusive that you disagreed with evidence proving a point, and so you would set out to provide me with evidence that shows such a position, in an attempt to prove to me that your current point is valid.

Evidence is not an automatic switch, which can alter opinions. It is simply a tool which allows one to justify ones position to other people. If i claim that there are flying aliens above my head, i should surely be required to provide you with evidence of the aliens, before you accept my assertions as correct.

Anyway, I'm aware you're asking pointless questions in an attempt to annoy/confuse me, but it never hurts to get ones thoughts down in prose.

Archive.

The whole idea of arguing is to prove ones rightness, to either the opposition or the audience.

Archive.

Prove what my peon friend?

Archive.

Prove that "to prove" is the purpose of proof, is what I'm going to assume you meant since what you said doesn't really make much sense, or maybe that was the point.

It doesn't need to be proven, it's a tautology.

Archive.

No, the idea that the purpose of proof is to prove something is always true.

Archive.

Is the purpose of a car to car?

Archive.

rightness is "always" subjective, so it's really about manipulating others by "proof" to think that what's true is the same thing you think is true

wrong

exactly.

you two could have done a lot of cooler things in the time you have in life that you have just wasted on having a debate on why people want to win online arguments by doing the exact same thing yourselves.

like what dezje?

i lack fantasy, i need some creative help to invoke innovative initiative in future activity :P

Like whine about how other people are wasting their lives online, whilst being online myself?

yeah sherlock

or like in the old days:
who reads this is dump!

You misunderstood my point completely.

The main point being that arguing is stupid and that those who do it are of weak character.

I never said arguing was stupid, I said there are those who always have to be right on every subject and go to great lengths to prove it, often in pathetic desperation. It's about ego and swallowing pride. That's not the same as saying arguing is stupid, not at all. Otherwise of course my post would've been a complete contradiction. :)

Your post is a complete contradiction.

Why do we argue?

To convince someone else that, using the evidence we have observed, or the opinions we hold, that our idea, perception, or concept is the correct one.


In this context, to convince someone you are correct, is, in essence, to win. As such, it is the purpose of arguing to win. There are auxilliary purposes ofcourse, such as expanding ones understanding of a subject, but in general, people enter into an argument under the pretense of an assumed correctness; this ofcourse implies that they think they are correct, already, given all the evidence on hand.

So by saying that people who argue to win are idiots and weak of character, you are defining the whole process of debate as idiotic. Even if someone holds onto their own opinion until the last breath, even if all the evidence points towards the opposite theory (hello creationism), even if their point is logically invalid, the purpose of the argument is to, if not convince the other person that your point is correct, then atleast to show your position is justifiable.

People who do not relinquish their beliefs are perhaps unscientific and illogical, but they are not stupid; they simply hold their beliefs firmly.

So by saying that people who argue to win are idiots and weak of character

The main point being that arguing is stupid and that those who do it are of weak character.

Again this is not what i'm saying at all, I'm solely talking about those who are never able to let go off an arguement and would never admit to themselves being wrong. Arguing for the sake of arguing, failure to admit failure, inability to swallow pride etc. I can easily distinguish these sorts of character traits from arguing to win or debating in general.
And I'm not just talking about these forums, there are those who do this consistently to their family and friends aswell.
Although I said this kind of behavior was due to broken ego I can also see it as competitive nature in some people. General boredom would be another reason, although that would not qualify for real life analogies(family and friends etc)

In any case they need to ask themselves why they do it. English is not a language I have mastered so you may have misunderstood me.

Also I'm not saying I myself am a saint, I like most people have occasionally succumbed to low tacticts on ESR be it due to boredom or feeding my own ego.. :)

There's many reasons why someone would argue for the sake of arguing. Perhaps the main reason is the one you cited, a broken or lacking ego; but why should that be a negative thing?

Perhaps they do it to try and outwit the other person: I often take the position which I believe to be weakest in an argument, and try to defend it, simply because I see that as the most challenging option. I will also not back down: the secret to arguing is that, if you do it correctly, you never lose (I believe you can find that in "Thank you for smoking", and I think it resonates in real life). You can also argue to gain a deeper understanding of the tactics other people employ in order to win an argument, or you could argue simply out of boredom.

In essence, you're right, some people do argue simply for the sake of it; but if you take that to be a completely negative thing, then maybe you're misunderstanding the purpose of arguing in general. Just because someone never backs down, doesn't mean they have a broken ego explicitly, nor does it mean they don't know they're wrong, or that they care other people know their wrong; it simply implies that they, in some way, enjoy the process and wish it to continue.

Just because someone never backs down, doesn't mean they have a broken ego explicitly, nor does it mean they don't know they're wrong, or that they care other people know their wrong; it simply implies that they, in some way, enjoy the process and wish it to continue.

Indeed I was guilty of the ugliest part of arguing, generalization.

I will agree that there are sometimes people who defy logic and argue for the sole purpose of annoyance, I guess those are the people you were ultimately reffering to. In any case, I wouldn't say they were stupid or had broken ego's; more likely they do because they enjoy seeing their effect on other people.

"I will agree that there are sometimes people who defy logic and argue for the sole purpose of annoyance, I guess those are the people you were ultimately reffering to."

You know what the talk is about so what is the purpose of your long comments trying to prove sthing? :)
If people could admit their mistakes everything would be different

btw arguing is for stupid
while discussion is for wise

Discussion is just an empty term filled with intillectual mental masturbations, an argument is really the basis of all discussions. I could discuss with you the finer points of cheese, and we may be in complete agreement with eachother, but we will learn nothing and expand our knowledge by the intimidating factor of zero. An argument, however, implies a disagreement, and from that disagreement we find new knowledge.

Ofcourse, the term discussion could cover arguments, but it doesn't do it explicitly, and so argument is the more correct and proper term.

The main statement of the column was that everyone who tries to win all their arguments is of weak character, I didn't agree with that assertion, and so an argument was undertaken.

try to understand that ancient saying "arguing is for stupid, discussion is for wise"
"An argument, however, implies a disagreement, and from that disagreement we find new knowledge."

you say that discussing things is "empty"?
no new knowledge? where is it said that in discussion you cant agree or disagree. The point is here the subjective and objective view and while blind arguing for the truth you believe which is not truth at all - cant bring knew knowledge to us, the discussion is the path that both with different opinions can come to a closest conclusion/solution which solves the thing they are discussing, it doesnt mean that it must change your opinion, but in the end it brings something knew than your and yours discussion "opponents" opinion.

(iam very sorry for my english maybe i didnt said what i wanted to and iam afraid that you can misinterpret me but maybe..)

in simple words arguing nowadays is coherent with anger: one is angry becouse he dont like to loose despite the fact that he is not right(and in most cases he knows that) he pushes himself to more arguing which is meaningless, which gives not new knowledge but shows only stupidity , that is how arguing is understood, that is why "discussion" word is used to seperate "stupid" arguing , from "wise" arguing.
(where emotions take control there is no point in arguing)
(uh i need to learn english, difficult to transfer my thoughts)

just some thoughts... feel free to discuss :) i respect everyones opinion and especially those who dont mismatch with me

I don't know if you're misunderstanding the words argument. By argument I'm pretty sure I mean what you just described, a discussion between 2 people with opposing views; I prefer to use the words argument since it emphasises the disagreement between the 2 parties: there's nothing to stop you reaching an amicable conclusion, or gaining new knowledge, from an argument.

uepuejq must be some kind of a comedic genius

its brandon...

yes I don't even dare pseudo-psychoanalyse that troubled mind :)

Archive.

fatty

actually, what I wonder is what the hell you're trying to write.
indulge? portray? wtf? are you just injecting random words into your comment?

i don't know why anyone would try to win every argument, but i'm sure letting others know how smart you are is a good motivator?
what are humans but a competitive species?
people make mistakes. sometimes they may be more informed on a topic than another, but, on the internet, words are the only thing people have to hang onto. so how else do you redeem yourself? if you don't have a degree, then the only way someone will take your comments seriously is if you already have a reputation, and that reputation is likely built by a constant effort of trying to look good -- arguments come with the territory, and if you make an error in what you say, then I think many people would feel that simply correcting yourself makes you look as though you lack confident on the topic (this is in text. I don't know how that translates to speech).

note that what I meant is 'correct yourself AFTER the fact,' and not to pre-emptively correct yourself, or issue a correction/addendum to your piece (which I'm doing now).

for instance, if I were arguing something about genetic engineering, and I was pointed out to be all but wrong, with the assistance of solid research and fact, then I would concede, because I do not pretend to be an authority on the subject of genetic engineering.

however, if I were arguing on the topic of UNIX/Linux, computer networking, computer security, or computer programming, and I had been pointed out to be wrong on something, then I may be more hesitant to do something -- perhaps prolonging the argument, or skirting around the issue at hand.

the internet is a fast paced world, and, most of the time, points are made in haste.
sure, it's great to research every little fact before you post something - nothing can go wrong, that way - but it is also very tedious, and to misquote a figure slightly on something that you actually knew, but perhaps your memory just flaked out on, or maybe something you had a great deal of knowledge of, but mis-remembered or didn't remember and stated improperly is a case of incorrectness, but it isn't a case of being misinformed, lacking knowledge, and not necessarily just presuming to know something that you haven't researched.
the problem is that when you are wrong, you may be seen that way, because the internet is a fast paced world. there isn't time to substantiate facts, and there isn't time to substantiate credentials.
authority has to be taken; it isn't granted by default.

actually, what I wonder is what the hell you're trying to write.
indulge? portray? wtf? are you just injecting random words into your comment?

if "indulged with anonymity" or "portray character" is something you do not understand I suggest using dictionaries to help you understand the context. I do suspect you fully understand what I meant and you're trying to prove something by pointing out inferior grammar for whatever reasons. Perhaps you took offence in my post but if you really want to open that discussion then you're one to talk with rather incomprehensible 110+ word sentences. Gotta go to class now I didn't get the chance to read the rest of your post yet.

uhh, why the hell would I say that I didn't understand if if I understood it? you're exceedingly paranoid, pretentious, and cynical. I don't know why.
did your father molest you? yeah, yeah, it sounds like a lame attempt at an
'internet-jab,' but one has to wonder; something has clearly damaged your psyche.

I don't think I need a dictionary. I think I'm much more deft with this language and its constructs than you most likely are.

I don't understand what you're trying to say, here. I'm one to talk? because my post is incomprehensible? the post which you haven't read? uh, ok.

try READING IT. when you post a question on a forum which consists of more readers than just yourself and your dog, then you're probably going to receive some sort of response.
if you don't want responses, then post it where it can't be read, or just keep it to yourself.

I'm sure that you will gain a lot of insight (and a little of opinion) by reading what I have written; after all, that's what you asked for.

**** hmm. looks like someone has been going around 'unapproving' my posts once again. one of your buddies, I'll bet.

uhh, why the hell would I say that I didn't understand if if I understood it?

I don't know, probably because you're a smartass.

you're exceedingly paranoid, pretentious, and cynical. I don't know why.

Probably all those things. I think I come off pretentious because I'm writing in english and not icelandic.

did your father molest you? yeah, yeah, it sounds like a lame attempt at an
'internet-jab,' but one has to wonder; something has clearly damaged your psyche.

Sounds more like you're a twelve?

I think I'm much more deft with this language and its constructs than you most likely are.

Absolutely, and that saddens me, but at the same time I feel good for your behalf.

Anyway I did get the chance to read your post and I don't share your opinion.
You claim the internet is a fast paced world, compared to what? I think you have far more time on the web to substantiate facts/credentials than in real-life arguements. Real-life arguements are far more fluid and spontaneous, offer far more memory leaks and misinterpretation.
In any case this is another discussion irrelevant to the one I was making in post #0 and #40. It applies to the internet and real-life alike.

FUCKING BULLSHIT! IT'S JUST COMPETETIVE SPIRIT OK?!!?!

Archive.

YEAH!!!!¤!§¤§§!§ etc

why I am reading all these?

i like potatoes

no you don't

he does

no he doesn't

he certainly does

no it is not

your right

damn it, i want a refund

you mean chips, right?

are you talking about the cpma-squad? lmao.
edit: welcome to internet btw.

thanks.

i like ur style

If you get mad because you get doggie styled all the time in an online argument by strangers, does not mean he/she is in weak spirit but that you're too retarded to realize it's the internet and it doesn't matter. You have a choice to let them "get to you" or "try to win" or just "walk away" and not bother with it instead of "/ranting."

lol, you clearly got the point

generalizing is hot

Clearly I had to make assumtions of what you're trying to say since you did a bad job at making your case. It appeared more like an attack on people who prefer to argue instead of resorting to one line random statements trying to appear funny. =\

never get in argument, youll never lose then...

I like the way you think!

I dont, i hate myself

Archive.

I like the way you think!

haters

The point of the argument is to "correct" somebody else's opinion.
Although this only applies to things that can be scientificly proved, esle it is purely subjective.

I'm right; you lose.. thanks :)

PUSSY.

PUSSY.

Because I'm always right.

I tend to just agree instead.

You would be a great gimp then.

yay

lol,internet-arguing.

°_°

°_° woot woot